Awards

Friday, May 24, 2013

Witnesses claim it took London police 20 minutes to show up and stop the two Muslim killers. But when it comes to something truly serious, like protecting Muslims from elderly British women, then the coppers were on the case.

“An 85-year-old woman has this afternoon been arrested after abuse was hurled at Muslims outside Gillingham Mosque. The pensioner was handcuffed and taken away in a van by officers attending the Canterbury Street mosque for Friday prayers."

"A spokesman for Avon and Somerset Police said, “People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious.”

NOT A BLOODY THING

Scholars of Islam like Prime Minister David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson insisted that the gruesome murder of a British soldier by two Muslims shouting “Allah Akbar” and quoting the Koran had nothing to do with Islam.

However Imam Omar Bakri Muhammad, who influenced Mujaheed Adebowale, the London beheader, disagrees saying, “Under Islam this can be justified”,

And what are Imam Omar Bakri Muhammad’s thoughts on the human life of non-Muslim civilians?

“We don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity.”

London Mayor Boris Johnson has said the blame for the brutal murder of a soldier in Woolwich lies with the ‘warped mind-set’ of his killers. ‘One obvious point, it is completely wrong to blame this killing on Islam.’

The point that Mayor Johnson deems so obvious that it need not even be backed up with proofs or verifications is that two Muslim terrorists quoting the Koran and carrying out an attack in line with Islamic beliefs had nothing to do with Islam.

Boris Johnson is correct that the ‘warped mind-set’ of his killers is to blame. But that ‘warped mind-set’ has a name. It’s called Islam.

Mayor Boris Johnson used to know that. Here’s what he wrote after the 7/7 bombings.

"That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem."

This was not just an attack on Britain – and on our British way of life. It was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country,” British Prime Minister David Cameron said.

Muslim communities do indeed give so much to the UK, aside from the occasional bombing and beheading, there are the sex grooming gangs, the social welfare fraud and the drug dealing.

It’s astounding really. They give so much and get so little in return. Just free homes and jail sentences.

For terror to work scaring people is necessary but not sufficient. Even all-powerful, naked, totalitarian terror requires more than fear to function. For the asymmetric terror of the weak -- Basque, say, or Chechen or Uighur secessionists -- fear serves as kindling to ignite an illusion of sympathy.

No one likes to think of himself as a coward. People resist admitting that they're afraid. Simply scaring them might even get their backs up. People prefer to think they end up yielding to what the terrorists demand, not because it's safer or more convenient, but because it's the right thing.

...

Terrorism's great achievement isn't hijacking jetliners, but hijacking the debate. Successful terrorism persuades the terror-stricken that he's conscience-stricken. Once adapted and internalized by its targets, asymmetric terror can be as powerful as totalitarian terror.

Ultimately, terror triumphs when it allows perpetrators to masquerade as victims. It's the intolerant demanding tolerance that bedevils Western civil liberties and anti-defamatory organizations

The United States was not incapable of using armed force over Benghazi. Obama’s first Libya lie, the one that led to the war, was the claim that Gaddafi forces were about to carry out a massacre in Benghazi. No such massacre had occurred anywhere or was going to occur, but it was enough for Obama to go to war, without ever admitting that he was at war.

Was the military power that was leveraged to defend Benghazi incapable of being leveraged to defend the mission in Benghazi? Was overthrowing Gaddafi really easier than protecting American diplomats and security personnel under siege?

Benghazi was, from beginning to end, a story of appeasement gone bad. The serial lies by a serial liar have covered up the ugly truth that American lives were sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. Four men are dead and a fifth has been locked up to keep the lie alive.

The British version of gender-neutral, gender-free, replacing gender-fair policy, attempted to ignore gender in military training and resulted in a doubling of injuries for female soldiers. In gender-fair training, women only suffered four times as many injuries as male soldiers. In gender-free training, women suffered nearly ten times as many injuries as male soldiers. An absurd term like gender-free could be coined, but it couldn’t be implemented because no one can be free of their gender. Gender is not open to regulation or deregulation. It is an absolute reality.

There’s nothing gender neutral about that. But gender-neutral really means neutral to the gender. And neutral to the gender is another way of saying that there are two differing standards. The standard changes to accommodate the gender.

In a bizarre statement, a month after Muslim terrorists set off bombs at the Boston Marathon that wounded 264 people, Obama claimed that, “There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure.”

The Boston terrorists only killed 3 people, but injured 264. There were at least 16 amputations of limbs. The original World Trade Center bombing resulted in six deaths and fifteen traumatic injuries. The Boston bombings are in a class with that.

I tend to think that reposting your own Tweets in articles and blogs is a bad habit, but sometimes arguing in 140 characters condenses an idea to something closer to slogan length. Considering the usual gargantuan length of my articles, it may be worth it in this case.

The graduate of Columbia, Occidental College and Harvard declaring himself an “Honorary Morehouse Man” is already a cynical joke. Obama never would have gone to Morehouse. The odds of him sending one of his offspring to an HBCU is right up there with him sending them to the moon.

England, in many American circles, had come to seem like Israel today, a country that dragged the United States into wars. While Nazi Germany, like the Muslims today, was seen as misunderstood and a victim of history. Kennedy’s observations would not have been unusual even for many liberal visitors older than him.

There was a sizable strain of admiration for fascism in liberal circles extending into the FDR administration. The sense was that fascists were capable of getting things done.

Secondly, I understand that bringing me on as network anchor of Zimbabwe state television has the stench of the arrogant Western imperialism that both you and I disdain so much. After all, wise man once said, “The only white man you can trust is a dead white man.”

Of course, your Excellency, those words were spoken by you. And I wholeheartedly agree with them. Though it is true on the outside I appear as white as the devil himself, my heart is of a different complexion altogether.

Apologists for Islam often quote, out of context, a Koranic verse, which says ‘Whosoever killeth a human being… it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind” as proof that Islam is humanitarian.

In fact this is a Talmudic quote that the Koran appropriates and then uses to spew hate against the Jews and Christians as unbelievers. Hasan, like most apologists, amends the quote removing the exception that you may kill as revenge for a killing or “for creating disorder in the land”. Those who create disorder should “be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides.”

For a full measure of Mehdi’s perversity, the Koranic verse quoted by the London Beheader advocating an eye for an eye is in Koran 5:46. The one quoted by Mehdi is in 5:33.

How is it possible to hold so many mutually exclusive beliefs? To preach tolerance and be so intolerant? To grieve for terror victims and justify terrorism? To stand up for workers and destroy their jobs? To march for peace and defend the militants? To denounce corruption and vote for the corrupt? To espouse non-violence and commit violent acts? To speak of liberties and promote government dictate? To bolster feminism and deride successful women? To cheer gays and aid the gay-bashers in the Middle East? To champion minorities as a group and hold them down as individuals? To care about the children and condemn them to intellectual mutilation? To denounce guns and hire armed bodyguards? To support the troops and side with their murderers? To demand love and be full of hate?

The bad news is that these are not contradictions. Worse yet, sensible people will keep losing ground to those whom they shrug off as bumbling sacks of absurdities, for as long as they don’t understand that the above paradoxical statements aren’t, in fact, oxymorons, but contain a very consistent logic.

In this sense, the best key to unlocking the mystery of the Progressive Chauvinist mind, breaking the leftist code, and discerning their collectivist morality is a statement attributed to Karl Marx, which, regardless of whether he wrote it or not, is perfectly aligned with the moral philosophy of Progressive Chauvinism:

To prosecute a war, you must first understand it. To understand it, you must acknowledge that it exists. Once you acknowledge that it exists, you can identify the enemy and his allies. You can identify your side and its allies, and all those who shift in the middle.

A true leadership must be found to prosecute the war effort. If elements of your leadership are uncommitted, corrupted or bear allegiance to the enemy's side, they must be removed and neutralized. Those who aid the enemy by virtue of personal sympathies or personal economic interests should be excised from the fighting body (how is a logistical, technical and perhaps moral detail, not more).

There must be a successful war strategy that includes tactical options that become plans. Those plans must be executed in the context of the war. The leadership must prepare for setbacks while seeking to achieve victory. That is, the goal must be to win the war and not seek to fight each individual battle to a draw.

To fight a war successfully, you must unify forces and operate within consensus, however messy, towards a specific end. Those who are willing to join must be enlisted, yet that is not enough. They must be informed, persuaded and reminded. In many cases, they must be educated from the source. The leaders of the effort must be clear-headed. They must be willing to accept that many nominal members of their society are unwilling to commit to the war effort. Efforts at recruiting these 'active neutrals' are probably wasted.

Distinguishing between those waiting for education and instilled motivation and those who have opted out of protecting their societies is one of the most difficult and trying of war mobilization tasks.

This leadership must also recognize the enemies within, those who assist enemy forces through commerce, propaganda, material support or acts of violence on his behalf. Their existence must be admitted and their activities monitored. Acts of assistance to the enemy should be forestalled or neutralized; when they occur, those committing them should be removed from society and denied the chance to commit similar actions in the future. All this without considering the state of motivation and readiness of the enemy.

All this while assuming that war is fought with some measure of fairness.

All this while believing that most human beings and cultures share common assumptions about life and its purposes, about the value of the individual and the worth of his aspirations.

So those things too must be done:

The nature of the enemy and his motivations must be understood;

The forces that shape his culture and his leadership must be analyzed;

The tendencies of his populations should be grasped, their attitude towards those ruling over them, and how they may react to internal and external stresses."

"Ultimately, terror triumphs when it allows perpetrators to masquerade as victims. It's the intolerant demanding tolerance that bedevils Western civil liberties and anti-defamatory organizations"

Good article by Mr. Jones but I think you become Left wing first, which means you abandon all values on behalf of your socialist ideology.

After that, what's not to tolerate? Especially when it comes to excusing Islam and its murders of those in the West who believe in freedom and individual rights.

"In this sense, the best key to unlocking the mystery of the Progressive Chauvinist mind, breaking the leftist code, and discerning their collectivist morality is a statement attributed to Karl Marx...'The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."

Add to that Lenin's dictum 'Tell any lie to gain power', the why of the Left's ability to twist, mangle, or simply completely evade any facts which clash with their beliefs becomes clear.

Most Muslims in the UK are peaceful, they have made that choice but that does not mean they are integrating. Neither does it mean Islam is none violent, it was a bloody religion from its inception. I'm guessing from conversations I have had with 'peace loving Muslim' that the plan is to outbreed us and out vote us, then using democracy force Sharia on the UK population.The Government will never secularise Islam, Muslims have seen it done to the Church of England and other denominations where atheists and agnostics sit in the pulpits. Successive governments have destroyed our own religious heritage which means at a religious level it is near impossible to find men who can debate Muslims and win – but it is being done in Cambridge in the Market Place on Saturdays where Christians disprove Islam and al-Qur’an in debate. Islam can be proven to be a false religion and that is the only way forward – it has no place in the UK. The government cannot have it both ways. Secularise Christian belief but support fundamental Islam. There are three sides to Islam, religious, political and military. It can only be a true religion of peace when it rules the world and that is the Islamic agenda. Last week showed the hypocrisy of Cameron, Clegg and Milliband, working together to undermine Christian marriage, all three turning a blind eye to Muslims who have more than one wife, here Sharia supplants UK law, but Christians must abandon their beliefs to accept gay marriage. Then after the bloody execution of Drummer Rigby by beheading all three with their cronies defend Islam as peaceful when the slaying was done in the name of al-Lah, which can be defended and justified by using Qur’anic verses.

This was the first time I've actually seen Daniel speak! (referring to the Sun News interview) I was wondering what you'd sound like. I take it that's an Israeli accent you have? I recognize a similarity to two Orthodox Jewish brothers I've gotten to know at my university, who both spent time in Israel when they were younger. And I know you write a lot about Israel as well, so it seems to make sense.

(btw my nom de plume is intended to be the Hebrew version of 'homo sapiens (wise man),' to attempt a bit of linguistic creativity)